The issue of Abortion in accordance to Christian beliefs

That analogy would be more accurate if your morality was telling you to give tattoos to people against their wills, then legally mandate that they keep the tattoo prominently displayed for 4-6 months, after which the tattoo could be given away.

You are talking about things that are voluntary, but a ban on abortions is you FORCING your morality on another person, which FORCES them to use their body for purposes they don't agree with.

You are welcome to try and come up with more analogies that approximate an abortion ban, but they are likely to fall as flat as this one.

 

So is the death penalty, yet it is legal and many justify it.

While you are technically murdering the fetus, you can't punish a rape victim and force them to go through pregnancy, it was not their fault AT ALL. This should be the only exception other than safety.

Legal question to attorneys: If someone puts a gun to your head and says either stab this man or I am going to shoot you in the back of the head. Would you be legally justified in stabbing the man to protect your head?

 

How does this argument apply when sex is voluntary? Sex ALWAYS means the risk of pregnancy. So it's not like they are getting pregnant against their will and then we are forcing them to keep the baby. They are choosing to have sex. They are taking the risk of forming a life. Why do they get to end that life just because it is inconvenient to them?

 

As long as we're allowing government intervention in matters of pregnancy, why not just make it mandatory for all women to have a Norplant installed around 13, and require that all men take the male birth control pill? All treatments would be covered under universal health coverage, and with two forms of birth control plus condoms, the chances of an unwanted pregnancy would drop to something about as close to zero as we will ever get.

If you want to get pregnant and try for a child, you'd apply for a permit, much in the same way you have to do some paperwork if you want to add a swimming pool to your backyard. Since both the woman and the man would have to get off of birth control at the same time, you'd enter into a compact that requires the implicit consent of two partners, removing the controversy over whether the father has any say in a pregnancy. Since you'd have documentation on both parents, it would be very easy to track one down if they bail or don't pay child support. And since we have universal health care, we'd know when/where the mother delivers, and could put the Norplant back in before she leaves the hospital.

There would of course be a religious exemption for those staunchly opposed to birth control, but no abortions would be legal for those under a religious exemption. Even then, to have a pregnancy would require finding a partner also under a religious exemption. Pregnancies without a permit would not be criminalized, but insurance companies would not have to pay for them. Those under the religious exemption would still be allowed to apply for permits. Additionally, the Norplant and Male Pill prevent ovulation and sperm production, rather than implantation of a fertilized embryo, so the number of religious exemptions would be relatively few; even the most dogmatic pro-life advocate would not hold sacred individual sperm and eggs.

This seems like an excellent way to address many people's legitimate concerns about the cases where a pregnancy would be psychologically scarring or economically unfeasible, while reducing abortions to as close to zero as we can. It calls for government intervention, but allows an easy out to those who vehemently oppose it, with the caveat that those same people will pay quite a bit for this freedom.

Thoughts?

 

Or, people could take responsibility for their actions.

 

Very well said! That's a position I can respect.

 

These debates are pointless. They stem from a fundamental difference in how people see the unborn. Are they life or are they not?

If you see it as a life, it isn't forcing "my morality" on you to say you can't kill it, it is forcing the morality of the basic tenets of society that killing innocent life is wrong. If you don't see it as a life then you won't accept that premise.

Abortion is an issue where there just isn't much room for compromise and the sides aren't going to change each other's minds magically. But to demonize the other side with terms like murderer if you have one or monster if you are against them is just ridiculous.

 

Exactly, THAT is forcing someone against their will. Banning other abortions is forcing people to take responsibility for their actions. If we were to ban ALL abortions, we would basically be saying rape victims are responsible for their situation.

 

These debates are pointless? Perhaps, but it points out one sided statements like this, cloaked as simply explaining both sides, IMO, when what you are saying is that those who support a woman's right to choose are going against "the basics tenets of society." That is simply your opinion and your definition of those "basic tenets." The majority of Americans evidently don't see society through your looking glass. So don't label your beliefs on this subject as "the basic tenets of society," when they are not. If you don't mind, including an "in my opinion" could be helpful. You aren't speaking for society. You are speaking for yourself and a minority of the American public. In my opinion.

 

I think he was saying not committing murder is a basic tenant of our society. So he said it comes down to whether you consider a fetus a life or not, because there is no disagreeing that society condemns murder.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

If you think an unborn child is a life THEN you are going against the basic tenets of society if you support abortion. If you don't see it as a life then you aren't going against the tenets of society because it's not killing if it isn't a life.

Do you think someone who believes a an unborn is a life and wants to kill it (if it is a life then it is killing) is in agreement with the basic tenets of society?

 

Exactly. And on that point I think people on both sides can be equally rational, intelligent and sane or irrational dumb and crazy.

 

pure awesome

 

Some thoughts

0.004% of abortions are performed to save a mother's life, from 1967-1990 151 US abortions were performed to save the mothers life.

More than 80% of abortions today are performed on unmarried women

75% of abortions are single women under the age of 30

99.9% of abortions are performed solely because the baby is unwanted

Abortion is never considered when contraceptive measures have been effective

 

Thanks for bringing reason into the conversation. The pro-abortion crowd loves to try to find technicalities to justify their much broader position, but you just blew them out of the water.

 

How is this relevant? Why do you or anybody else care if the woman is single, married, her age, her reasons so on and so forth?

 

I think he was trying to illustrate the misconceptions of pro-abortion common arguments. Basically it illustrates that the overwhelming majority of abortions are from single women who just don't want the child. Often times you hear abortionists accuse those who oppose them of wanting to kill or let the mothers be killed. This simply isn't true as that number shows only a miniscule percentage of abortions are done to save the mother.

May not be relevant to your argument, but it is very much relevant to the question in general.

 

Context.

When anti-abortionists make their arguments they are often demonized with tales of raped women and mothers who would otherwise die. The truth is that the vast majority of abortions are from women who simply got pregnant and don't want to have a baby.

Now for many that doesn't change the argument. If you don't think it's a life and that is a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, that context really doesn't impact you.

 

Those who say that there should be no exception for rape and the health of the mother deserve whatever "demonizing" they get, in my opinion. "Demonizing" is in the eye of the beholder. A woman feel demonized when the state tells her that she has to have an ultrasound before having an abortion, a gross intrusion on her right to privacy. So yeah, context counts for something, doesn't it.

 

That segment is a minority. However, to act like they are monsters is ridiculous.

Do you think that if a mother has a 5 year old son that is the product of rape she should be allowed to kill him? Because to those who take that stance, it is the same thing to them. They see them both as lives, equally. Now, you may think that is wrong, but to say it is monstrous is ridiculous. Valuing life isn't something monsters do and that is what those people are doing in their mind. Protecting a life.

Then she doesn't know the definition of the word and that's a shame.

Always, though the "context" you provided didn't offer much.

Your hostility makes your arguments weaker, not stronger.